Court OKs water management system

BOISE – Water managers must take into account where the resource can best be put to use – not just who owned the rights to it first, the Idaho Supreme Court said in a ruling Monday.

The high court unanimously struck down a June 2006 district court decision that had said the state’s method of managing water – balancing the needs of so-called junior water rights holders, who purchased their rights to the resource after 1950, against those of “senior” rights holders who have held rights since the early 1900s – was unconstitutional.

Had the ruling been upheld, many worried holders of older water rights would issue a call to cut off water from those with newer water rights, potentially drying up tens of thousands of acres of valuable farmland and devastating Idaho’s agricultural economy.

Monday’s decision could be an incentive to bring people back to the bargaining table, said House Speaker Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale.

“This puts us kind of back where we started from,” Denney said. “There’s enough risk for the (senior) water users – and still enough risk for the (junior) users – that we may come to some resolution.”

Newer, junior rights holders tend to be farmers and municipal districts who pump their water from underground, while senior holders are usually canal and irrigation companies who get it from surface sources. The groups have been fighting over how water is distributed from the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer, a Lake Erie-sized underground reservoir in eastern Idaho that feeds the Snake River at the natural Thousand Springs area near Hagerman.

Senior rights holders say drought and overuse have drained the aquifer, and in 2005, a group of them including the Twin Falls Canal Co. sued, saying they should have full access to a resource to which they own the rights.

The Supreme Court, however, said Idaho law requires that the priorities of those who have first dibs on water be balanced against whether they are putting the water to good use.

The court affirmed policies of the director of the Department of Water Resources, who weighs a host of factors, including whether water is being put to good use and how much a senior right holder has stored in reserves.

“Somewhere between the absolute right to use a decreed water right and an obligation not to waste it and to protect the public’s interest in this valuable commodity, lies an area for the exercise of discretion by the director,” the justices wrote.

They struck down 5th District Judge Barry Wood’s decision that the state’s system of doling out water was too arbitrary and gave the director too much discretion.

Attorneys for groundwater pumpers said the Supreme Court decision confirmed that in Idaho, the right to water isn’t absolute.

“(Putting water to) beneficial use is a paramount requirement,” said Michael C. Creamer, an attorney for the Idaho Ground Water Appropriators. “The Supreme Court has confirmed that these are bedrock principles that need to be adhered to.”

Attorneys for senior rights holders could not be reached for comment Monday.

Vince Alberdi, manager for the Twin Falls Canal Co., also didn’t return phone calls seeking comment.

State lawmakers had been bracing to move quickly if the court issued a decision that could have potentially led to shutting off water to farmers and cities.

Now, they say, they have more time, but the need to sort out water distribution in the state remains glaring.

Gov. Butch Otter said he still wants to hold a water summit to bring stakeholders together to discuss the issue, said spokesman Mark Warbis.